Gun laws?

Could you find me a statistic on how many people are killed annually by guns on college campuses? Then divine that number by the total number of college students .

547,000 Americans die every year from cancer.

There are 303,000,000 people in America.

This means that only .18% of Americans die from cancer every year.

Cancer must not be a big problem, then.

Well while looking for shooting statistics I came across this article:

Of course, these horrors are hardly unique to the United States. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries-- including France, Germany and Switzerland-- have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst, in Germany, resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators. Of course, since 1997 there have been multiple attacks in the U.S., with the 13 dead at Columbine. Prior to Virginia Tech, the two previous most deadly shootings in the U.S. were the 1991 Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas, which left 23 people dead, and the shooting at a California McDonald's in 1984, in which 21 people were killed. All these attacks shared something in common: citizens were already banned from having guns in those areas. Indeed, every multiple-victim public shooting of any significant size in the United States has occurred in one of these gun-free zones. The problem with gun-control laws is not that there isn't enough regulation, rather that it is primarily the law-abiding, not the criminals, who obey these laws. Virginia Tech has rigorously enforced its gun-free zone policy and suspended

Up until the early 1970s, Israel had to deal with the cold reality of terrorists who would take machine guns into shopping malls, schools, and Synagogues and open fire. That type of attack doesn’t occur any more. Why? Israelis realized that armed citizens could stop such an attacker before he did much damage. About 15 percent of Israelis are now licensed to carry weapons, and determined terrorists have to resort to less effective, secretive routes of attack such as bombing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294954,00.html

That's perfectly logical. If guns are accessable, yet banned in CERTAIN places, a criminal with any sort of common sense will target the places where guns are banned.

If they were banned EVERYWHERE, for everyone but law enforcement, and guns were not so easily accessable, there would be much less of a problem.

Regulating guns in only certain places is asking for trouble.

The only person you can take guns from is a law abiding citizen, you cannot make a law that criminals will not break. There's plenty of places in the world you can live that good people cannot own guns, do you think it is safer? You think no one gets shot?

Also, why can't you accept the fact that if this government gets too powerful, and we lose our liberty, these guns we have are going to be our liberty. I believe its a big part of why we still have freedom of speech and religion and other basic rights, first you take guns, then the others just dissapear in time. Because those in power know we could not defend ourselves.

Another thing, if you think making all gun sales illegal and confiscation and all that bullshit is going to mean there is no guns, get a grip. Theres like millions of tons of illegal drugs and guns alike shipped into this country every year. You are only going to take guns away from good people.

The only person you can take guns from is a law abiding citizen, you cannot make a law that criminals will not break. There's plenty of places in the world you can live that good people cannot own guns, do you think it is safer? You think no one gets shot? Also, why can't you accept the fact that if this government gets too powerful, and we lose our liberty, these guns we have are going to be our liberty. I believe its a big part of why we still have freedom of speech and religion and other basic rights, first you take guns, then the others just dissapear in time. Because those in power know we could not defend ourselves. Another thing, if you think making all gun sales illegal and confiscation and all that bullshit is going to mean there is no guns, get a grip. Theres like millions of tons of illegal drugs and guns alike shipped into this country every year. You are only going to take guns away from good people.

But the fact is, all evidence points to you being wrong on all of your points, if you look at other countries that have gun regulation. They are not ran by a dictator, they have a much lower murder rate, and fewer criminals get their hands on guns.

But the fact is, all evidence points to you being wrong on all of your points.

Fact is I haven't seen any evidence that proves me wrong, it's your turn.



"Report: Murder Rates Remain Same in Tough Gun Law States"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95436&page=1
"Rising Gun Ownership Has Helped Cut Murder Rates for Americans Over 25, New Study Says"
http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482
"Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime"
http://newsbusters.org/node/12556
Shows data representing states with and without conceal permits
http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/s...cw.4sep95.html
" The British government banned handguns in January 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the seven years from 1996 to 2003. Since 1996, the rate of serious violent crime has soared by 88%, armed robberies by 101%, rapes by 105% and homicide by 24%."
http://www.nysun.com/article/25547

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1301/Guns-Regulation.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
"Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html


Yea right.

That's perfectly logical. If guns are accessable, yet banned in CERTAIN places, a criminal with any sort of common sense will target the places where guns are banned. If they were banned EVERYWHERE, for everyone but law enforcement, and guns were not so easily accessable, there would be much less of a problem. Regulating guns in only certain places is asking for trouble.

Sure, if you banned guns in general they might be harder to access for the average person. There will be a huge market for importing illegal firearms much like modern drug smuggling. Millions if not billions that would be spent on domestically produced firearms will be sent to other countries, quite possibly to terrorism sponsoring agents. Banning stuff outright is working so well. Look at the war on drugs and prohibition.

Anyways, it's not like all the guns in this country are in dealers' hands right now. There are literally generations of firearms in this country. To rid the country of ALL of them would require some sort of authoritarian police state.

547,000 Americans die every year from cancer. There are 303,000,000 people in America. This means that only .18% of Americans die from cancer every year. Cancer must not be a big problem, then.

Sorry, I just saw this since it was bumped. You're saying guns kill a comparable number of people on COLLEGE CAMPUSES to cancer in general? That's a bold allusion. Sensationalism at it's worst, KA. I expected more .

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's a relatively small amount of people, if you look at the big picture, but cancer is still a big problem.

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's a relatively small amount of people, if you look at the big picture, but cancer is still a big problem.

Why don't you outlaw cars? We'll all be a lot safer then and you're for sure hundreds of times more likely to die from a car accident than be shot on a college campus. You act like it's a huge plague that kills many thousands of students a year. No, it's the exception not the rule. SENSATIONALISM!